Gunman kills 3 at NC lumber company
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/13/10148740-gunman-kills-3-at-nc-lumber-companySTAR, N.C. -- A gunman opened fire Friday at a lumber company, killing three people and injuring one before shooting himself, local media reported.
Montgomery County Sheriff Dempsey Owens told WXII 12 that deputies were called to McBride Lumber Company just after 6 a.m.
snip
Response to warrior1 (Original post)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and let's not forget that this wouldn't have happened if everyone at the lumber yard had been packing.
Feel free to append any other NRA talking points that make no sense.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Or a baseball bat.
Guns do not make it any easier to kill multiple targets in a short amount of time.
Mopar151
(9,997 posts)You gotta get right up close to off someone with a knife or club, and it is no sure thing then - and the target may simply run away.
Not so with a gun - You can kill someone with little physical effort, hundreds of feet away.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Poster asked "Feel free to append any other NRA talking points that make no sense"
I've heard NRA-types claim that people could kill just as many people with knives, bats, and other types of close-quarter weapons.
Mopar151
(9,997 posts)I think I was trying to concur with your sarcasam, or somethin' like that.
saras
(6,670 posts)Maybe there really are middle-class sheeple dumb enough to stand around in line while a single individual clubs a whole bunch of them to death with a bat, and as far as I can tell by observing the middle class, this is actually rather likely.
But I don't think you'll find very many working-class people who will stand for it.
That's why the Army has that knife battalion.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Perhaps.
Of course this ignores the blatant fact that a knife and a baseball bat are meant to be used for something else besides killing something. A gun... not so much. Using a baseball bat (or a car, or a chainsaw, or a pair of scissors...and so on) to kill something is misusing the item. Using a gun to kill something is using it correctly.
Try not to completely ignore this when forming an argument that has something to do with anything.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)...but not having a gun will definitely not save you from a criminal with a gun.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)right?
After all, children as young as two are killed with guns every year.
They should be able to defend themselves.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That is a straw man argument. No one has advocated arming children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
hack89
(39,171 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)perspective
hack89
(39,171 posts)it looks like we are on the right path - right?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, we are.
Whether gun ownership, laws, the NRA, Dems or Repugs and/or the 2nd Amendment have anything to do with it is still a mystery.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so why worry about it? Just accept the fact that you have never been safer and next year you will be safer yet.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)Firearm "deaths" (both homicide and non-homicide) are less than automobiles or poisoning deaths. The majority of firearm related deaths -- where the 88 # came from -- are from suicides. Factoring out suicides, the daily death toll from guns is high, but you should be more worried about being poisoned to death than an incident involving a gun.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)If the 4% who pack now have their way, everyone will be packing down the road. At that point, accidental shootings, spousal abuse, stolen guns, armed road rage, etc., will clearly produce enough firearm deaths that even those obsessed with guns will see it as "significant." Of course, we'll have 100 million more guns to deal with.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)There is no significant deterrent today for greater than 4% ownership. Nor has there ever been. Believe it or not, the market for gun owners is fairly inelastic. You either want a gun or you don't.
Your 40% analogy sounds like a slippery slope logical fallacy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Those stuck in the "gun culture" will always want others to join them in their miserable view of life and society.
Unless the price of guns and bullets go down, that 4% will remain as about as constant as it always has been. Although, it is interesting to note the disdain you hold for gun owners and how quickly you dismiss their motives for gun ownership. I can only hope that gun opponents are unsuccessful in forcing their miserable view of life and society on those that choose to embrace gun ownership.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It is "carrying it" too far in my opinion.
You should visit the "gungeon" where weekly those who promote guns in public post and cheer all the new permits issued. I think guns are a much bigger issue than you realize.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)nt
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)So far, he's failed to define what that means.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Objective standards for issuing concealed weapons permits have been in place in some states as far back as 1984, and I don't know of any where even 1% of the people have even gotten permits much less carry a weapon daily.
Most people don't get permits because they don't want one, or can't qualify.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Since CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, it seems to me that if 40% of the population were CCW permit holders we would see a huge decrease in crime.
Of course, crime, including violent crime, is continuing its decades-long decline and is currently at historic lows.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Declining crime rates are not due to you and others parading around with guns. Aging population, better surveillance, longer sentences, etc., are.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Yes, Hoyt, we've been over this ground already. If you never pick up a gun, you will never commit a gun crime. I get it.
But you have no control over the people around you in public. Some of those people will be carrying firearms, lawfully or not.
And when you compare CCW permit holders against everyone else in society that you might encounter from the public at large, CCW permit holders are many times less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.
It's like saying virgins will never have STDs, so you can sleep with anyone you want and not have to worry about getting an STD. Yes, it is a fact that virgins won't ever get STDs. But that fact does you no good as you move in a world where you cannot simply surround yourself with virgins.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Tell that to the families of these victims. Tell them that everything is just fine. Tell it 88 times every day.
hack89
(39,171 posts)when will you say that we have done all we can do? If your number is zero, what are you willing to do to get there?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)Unless you are going to go around town wrapping yourself in kevlar bubble wrap and hiring your own personal food taster, life is going to be full of risks. The odd chance that you may be directly affected by gun violence is dwarfed by the chance that you will be poisoned or in a vehicle accident. Seriously. This was an unfortunate tragedy, but this incident is the exception, not the rule. Guns are used every day in a variety of responsible and safe ways.
montanto
(2,966 posts)die as a result of "second hand cigarette smoke." I know that something like 500 people will die today of preventable medical errors. Thousands of people die every day from preventable causes related to habits and diet.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You bring up a good point though -- we have been smart enough to ban a lot of smoking in public in recent years.
At the same time, those who can't walk out of their house without a gun or two, have been successful in getting the backing of right wing legislators to pass laws allowing more guns in public. It's like people are really afraid they are going to be attacked standing in line at Chuck E Cheez or something if they don't have a gun strapped to their bodies.
hack89
(39,171 posts)nt
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are many many other things to worry about besides guns.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'll condemn big food and and big booze just as much as I condemn big guns.
We must do better in this country. You can not rationalize your way out of suffering. It is by definition an irrational affliction.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Every year the suffering is less and less- our laws and policies appear to be working
Would you consider regulating food and alcohol like you would guns? Why shouldn't people with a record of DUI be banned from buying alcohol for example?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Fully funding mental health and rationalizing our insane "war on drugs" would do more to reduce gun deaths than further restrictions on law abiding gun owners. Taking away my guns would have absolutely no impact what so ever on gun violence. Let concentrate on the real problem.
jpak
(41,759 posts)I guess they lied
yup
hack89
(39,171 posts)where has anyone said that any law would eliminate criminal acts?
jpak
(41,759 posts)I guess it didn't
nope
hack89
(39,171 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Go figure.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)In a little while when everyone is packing, shootings will disappear completely.
For the NRA's ideal situation, you need to look to Northern Illinois U. A crazy with a gun walked into a lecture hall and started firing. In NRA Utopia, all 120 students, upon seeing the mass murderer, would stand, remove their own sidearms from their holsters, and open fire. Surely you can see how much better that would be.
Right-wing logic eludes me on all levels.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Like most political issues, you have to look toward the future. You guys can't because you are stuck in the past, clinging to your guns. Seems like someone said something like that, and I agree. Time to give em up, or some of em anyway.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the future has arrived already.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)We've had nearly 30 years of ever-more-liberal gun laws in this country, going from virtually no states allowing CCW to now every state except one. CCW permit holders have been shown to be less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than people who don't have a CCW permit.
So on what basis are you making this prediction?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)choose not to carry a gun. You keep saying that, but you are comparing gun carriers to the population as a whole. Try comparing carriers to those who are rational and choose not to carry, but could qualify for a permit.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)People like you keep saying that we should not allow concealed carry because people who carry concealed firearms might do bad things with their guns.
But compared to everyone else you are likely to encounter on the street, which includes the entire population, including those people who can't get a permit and those who can., CCW permit holders hardly ever are involved in crime.
You are surrounded by the population as a whole.
If you are worried about random crime that might happen from concealed carry permit holders, then you are likewise worried about random crime that might be committed by the population as a whole.
In other words, you could encounter anyone on the street - anyone from the population as a whole. And if the person you encounter happens to have a concealed carry permit, they are much less likely to victimize you violently than anyone else you might encounter.
You want to compare all law-abiding people against each other, and ignore criminals you might encounter on the street. Well of course! If you exclude the criminal element in society, you will naturally be very safe! But no one has that luxury. When you go out in the world you are surrounded by the population as a whole. Some of those people will be bad people, and some of them will be concealed carry permit holders.
And the fact is, when you encounter a CCW permit holder, compared to everyone else you might encounter in public, you can be certain that that person is much less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than anyone else you might encounter in the population as a whole. You can be certain that they have never been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they have never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and they have never been convicted of a disqualifying felony.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)See how you rate then.
"The CCWers are less likely to commit a crime" argument is just bogus and is not a rationale for letting almost anyone carry a gun in public.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)See how you rate then.
"The CCWers are less likely to commit a crime" argument is just bogus and is not a rationale for letting almost anyone carry a gun in public.
That is not a valid comparison.
If I drop you off in the middle of downtown Atlanta, you are surrounded by the population at large. This is your society. These are the people you live with.
Not just a subset of "everyone who could get a CCW permit", and not just a subset of "everyone who carries a gun".
No.
You are surrounded by the public at large. That includes everyone. Criminals. Law-abiding people. Armed people. Unarmed people.
If you are concerned about the crimes a CCW permit holder might commit against you, you have to compare them against all the other people you might encounter while in public.
That is the public at large.
There's no point in comparing CCW permit holders just against armed people, because when you go out in public, because you are not just surrounded by armed people.
There is no point in comparing CCW permit holders against just people who can lawfully carry firearms, because you are not just surrounded by people who can lawfully carry firerams.
If you are going to single out CCW permit holders as being especially dangerous, you can only consider how dangerous they are compared to everyone else you might encounter in public. And that means comparing them against everyone else you might encounter in public.
That includes criminals, law-abiding people, armed people, and unarmed people, crazy people, sane people, and everything in between.
And when you make that comparison, you see that CCW permit holders are much less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than everyone else.
But even when you compare them against other CCW permit holders, the rate of permit revocation is less than 2%, which means that even compared against themselves, 98% of CCW permit holders aren't involved in a crime serious enough to warrant revocation of their permits.
The bottom line is your fears of CCW permit holders is completely unfounded. You have no rational basis for this fear. It is an irrational phobia.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)My "fears" don't cause me to strap a gun or two on and walk around in society.
More guns are not the answer for society, just the subset who can't seem to function without more guns.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)While you would certainly be better off if criminals weren't armed, why are you throwing lawful people like myself into the mix?
In what way will you be better off if I am not armed?
My "fears" don't cause me to strap a gun or two on and walk around in society.
More guns are not the answer for society, just the subset who can't seem to function without more guns.
Blah blah blah more "fear" bullshit again.
jpak
(41,759 posts)possibly the dumbest post I have ever read on DU
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)UpInArms
(51,284 posts)sigh
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Never leave home without your PSD.
jpak
(41,759 posts)yup
Lance_Boyle
(5,559 posts)NC is a "shall issue" state but individual county sheriffs get to decide how the "shall" is interpreted and how many hoops you have to jump through to get one. I took my course and got my certification a month ago, and submitted my application to the sheriff's office within days. In my county the sheriff wants (and historically uses) all of 90 days to grant the permit. Two of the others in the cert class with me live in another county and turned in their applications the same day I did - they have their permits in hand already.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Yea, I can't say for sure -- but I would bet serious money on a cowboy with a gun or two strapped to their body would make things worse.
LarryNM
(493 posts)I wonder how many of these workplace shootings involve bullying in the workplace or the company's failed attempts to deal with it. Even if not bullying, all workplace acts of violence, threats of violence or tensions at home and in the workplace should be noted and dealt with as best as possible Prior to future events for the mental and physical well-being of all. Observe, Report, Take Action.
Mopar151
(9,997 posts)It's about how girls bully, a la "Mean Girls". Many of the ogres of the workplace operate the same way......